It's all a matter of record, so I won't waste my time arguing with your ridiculous assertions that it didn't happen.

I dont want to disturb but could you explain about the exact topic this debate is going on? Getting tenure after how many years. Please give me a short introduction for this. What is the difference of your how many 18 28 years in system stuff and the two years of his sister. I hope that we have some others here who cant follow the debate.  Or is it about a typical male thing, mine is bigger than yours? I'm not joking and my lack of informations is honest. Thanks.

Actually, whenever I've talked with her on this issue, she said that this isn't as unusual as one might think in her field, which is economics and marketing.  She said that it is more common for someone who just got a Ph.D. to get a tenure-track position than it is to get a postdoc, and that the people who have to "settle" for a post-doc are the weaker candidates who weren't able to find a job.  I know that in physics and astronomy, though, it requires an exceptionally strong candidate to be able to land a tenure-track position without having done a postdoc for at least a year or two, and I'm sure that's the case in many other fields, too.

On a change of subject, with the general tenure process being such as it is, it's easy to see how the climate change paradigm has evolved to its current status: many fields are trying to go for a limited amount of government funding, so in one field where the amount of funding is given based on the perceived importance of the issue as judged from the media spotlight, people are going to hype it up as much as possible, doing studies based on the very most extreme computer models available, reaching conclusions that are expected to be reached by their universities in order to more media spotlight time and more funding, and thus more articles in journals, peer-reviewed by the same people who did the same thing 6+ years ago and got tenure based on another group of people who also did the same thing 6+ years ago, etc.  In that case, the goal of allowing young minds to pursue a diversity of research interests ends up backfiring and doing the opposite, and meanwhile, I do a linear regression of the past 10 years of data and find a rising trend of only 0.06 degrees per decade with a statistically insignificant R-squared value of 0.03 (or maybe I have these reversed--since it was statistically insignificant, I didn't put them in memory very well! ).  Of course, this result, which can be obtained by anyone who knows how to use Excel's scatter plot and linear regression tools, probably wouldn't get published in any high-level journal because the people who would peer-review the article would see it as a threat to their funding.  They'd write back (if they bothered really reviewing the document at all) about the previous results showing such increased as 0.2 degrees per decade, even though those are best-fitted such that the first half of the data are weighed down by the end of a cooling trend from an oscillation and a couple of substantial periods of volcanic activity, and the second half are ballooned up by the strongest El Nino ever known and the end of the most active 70 year period of solar activity in the past 7000 years.  Null results are bad in that they decrease funding potential by decreasing the size of the "perceived importance bubble".  With the lack of many publications, all but the very strongest of those against the normal paradigm would be denied tenure.  This partly explains why you have lots of no-name "climate scientists" in the field, often without any formal training in the field, but the few who are against the paradigm are often some of the strongest and most well-known people out there (like William Gray, who does the hurricane forecasts, and John Christy, who is responsible for the satellite temperature data).

Of course, the same thing occurs in other fields too, but typically, you have a situation such as exists in physics and astronomy: any result is seen as interesting and important, and the funding comes regardless, as long as you're publishing in some reasonably well-known journal, which is peer-reviewed by people who have possibly obtained or studied a variety of results for what you're publishing.  They aren't threatened because they still get funding in a field where null results are often just as interesting and important as positive results.

Thanks for the insight. I had no idea the tenure process was so structured.

There you go.  :)

You have no idea, but still you tell ME how the tenure process works.  BTW, typically, a post-doc is part of a tenure-earning process.  If you are a post-doc for 3 years, you might well shorten the tenure schedule to 3 years once you find a tenure-track position.  Total time is STILL 6 years, however, as I clearly stated.  Takes that long to establish a track record where a university will be willing to make the "multi-million dollar decision" to grant you permanent employment.

I can't imagine what a first-time reader would think, reading many of these posts.  Arguments about specific details followed by "I had no idea..."  Typically one that "has no idea" chooses to keep mouth closed to avoid looking foolish.

BTW, the tenure process is almost universally 7 years.  You apply and are evaluated during your 6th year.  You are either granted tenure, or given a one-year terminal contract so that you have time to find another position.  Total of 7 years.  You could find such in any faculty handbook at any university you care to investigate.  BTW, Brown's online faculty handbook uses the 7 year policy that most everyone else uses (not counting high schools and such where tenure is a completely different thing).

There are some exceptions as well.  One can request an extension for 1 or 2 years, as in the case where a female faculty member becomes pregnant and takes a semester off for complications.  She could ask to extend the tenure evaluation period from 6 years to 7 or even 8 years.  Most universities have an absolute max.  I believe Brown's fac handbook said 10 years is the limit...